Thread by @rootkovska

I’d like to share below a few thoughts on meta-/normative-ethics and how its challenges might be similar to some well known problems of computer programming languages and — consequently — how similar solutions might perhaps be applied: (0/12)

(1/12) Lots of clashes in society seem to be caused by *implicit* assumption that other persons should subscribe to the same ethical system as we do (and more generally to the same axiological systems).

(2/12) Now, because this is all axiology, so assigning a *value* to acts, persons, ideas, creations, we naturally start making comparisons between “how good/bad” a given act or person is. And we use *implicit* “type casting” from the other person’s systems to our own...

(3/12) As in computer languages, whenever one starts playing with implicit type casting (as infamously in C), things usually do not end up well… Such is the case when e.g. a Marxist wants to discuss normative ethics with e.g. a Christian.

(4/12) If we could somehow decompose that process of value comparison between different ethical system, we might remove lots of unnecessary negative emotions that otherwise seem indispensable in this area - “How can you be SO {cruel, cynical, BAD}?”

(5/12) Such decomposition should include: 1) coming up with an objective way to describe the ethical system any given person believes in, and 2) *explicit* “type converters” and automated “resolvers” used for comparing values between such *different* systems.

(6/12) The first task could be approached by creating some kind of an “ethical descriptor” which comprises a number of properties. E.g. of some boolean properties:

mind.dualism = true|false,
mind.cartesian_ego = true|false,
personality.temporal_continuity = true|false,

etc.

(7/12) We could then have tools (apps!) for helping persons to build a descriptor representing *their* own ethical system. As a bonus feature they would do a quick automatic check for any *inconsistencies* in such a descriptor (how cool is that!)

(8/12) Such ethical descriptors would likely comprise many tens of properties, producing very large space of possible ethical systems. By convention some constellations in this space might be labeled as e.g. “communism”, “western liberalism”, etc. This would be optional, however.

(9/12) Now we could move on and have largely automated ways of resolving disputes between two persons. The resolver would take as input descriptors of the 2 debators, plus the statement being discussed (“should abortion be legal?”, “should gays adoption rights?”)...

(10/12) The resolver will likely *not* return a ready answer, but rather pinpoint the actual property(ies) responsible for lack of agreement. In case of the “abortion” question above, this might perhaps be the property: “mind.cartesian_ego”, possibly other properties.

(11/12) I sincerely believe such an approach might help eliminate lots of negative emotions in societies. It will *not* provide answers “what is THE RIGHT thing to do” to which all would agree, or course. Because there is no one, "objectively true" ethics.

(12/12) …but might help us understand why we don’t agree with others on these fundamental matters. Perhaps this might be a good start for building societies around similar axiology descriptors (instead of geographic location), easing the need of violence and war?